Trump: America's Greatness Happened Because of 'Jesus Christ and His Followers and His Church'

so God has changed, no longer gets little children pregnant, that is a good thing

the truth is, the creators of the bible did live in a different time, writers today would have wrote it differently for sure

 

Religion has no place in political speach. It only serves to divide. That's not what we need. There is no bigger turn off for me than to have someone preach at me. That goes for religious preaching, athiest preaching, vegan preaching, global warming preaching, or any other "i'm more moral than you" preaching.

 

It was not god that changed, it was humans with something called free will. Even if you go back to 1777, things they said and did back then was much different than today even if you agree with the US Constitution precepts. And that is the point of free will here. We change and as we change, we decide to view things differently. It was not that long ago that women could not own property or vote. But thanks to Wyoming, that all changed. We used to have only at fault divorce, but Nevada changed all that, and the list goes on and on.

I see the same things in China even those who are devout Buddhists, Confuscists, or Taoists. The people have changed, and yet they still hold onto the concepts of their religion too. And even in some religions, some ancient religions, the concept of a virgin birth is not all uncommon. It is just that the story of Mary is the most famous of them.

 

Who's preaching? Freshair asked a question, and I answered it. And it went on from there.

 

God made the choice to get the child named Mary Pregnant, so God must have changed

 

Not really. The whole point of the Old Testament is to provide prophecy of the Massiah. It was foretold that would happen. And the whole point of the New Testament is why the Messiah came and how the Messiah fulfilled OT prophecy. God did not change, mankind did.

 

but God chose to get the child named Mary pregnant, no one choose for him - so the story goes anyways

the God of the OT was much different than the God of the NT, he changed - that was the real point of the NT, to change people's belief in God, make him nicer and easier for society to support

 

Trump (aka: the Golden Calf) was preaching, it was not a reply to you, it was a reply to the thread

 

Trump

 

Actually, I am totally opposed to the use of anything other than friendly persuasion to convert people to worship God. God is not interested in coerced worship. He wants people who use their free will choice to accept His grace through faith and believe. We simply want government at all levels to be likewise toward religious belief and not coerce religious people to act in violation of our religious beliefs.

 

Dang .. and all this time I thought you supported abortion law .. My mistake ..

 

abortion law does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. I know many non-religious people who are opposed to abortion because they believe it to be murder. Do you consider laws against murder as religious based?

 

you are correct that there are uneducated or just plain stupid people out there who support abortion law on the basis of something other than religion .. Just really difficult to find .. the vast majority being religious .. but in this case 100% due to religious belief as with the vast majority.

No but murder has zero to do with the issue until you can prove that a person exists at conception

 

I'm certainly not going to get into the arguments of defining when a person exists but just say that right now, people have different definitions for that point. Your definition is no more valid than any one else. Even the law has not defined that. So, it's just as valid for some people to say that you are uneducated or just plain stupid.

 

I support leaving it up to each state to decide. My position on abortion is based on the science of when life begins, when the heart beat begins, when the baby can feel pain, especially for dismemberment abortions, and the vision of the ultra sound showing a real baby, not a clump of cells. My weapon against abortion is science, not religion. I believe that pre born human life should be as protected by the constitution as post born life is. A constitutional not a religious issue

 

You are a teller of tall tales .. to your self... "leaving up to the each state to decide" is a non answer. .. Do you .. or do you not support abortion law .. the answer to which is "Yes"

Further ... you claim that this law is based on "Science" . which you and I both know you are not well versed .. and that I am .. so you have your work cut out for you.

"Science" - for starters is not the sole determinant of personhood .. unless you have defined what a person is .. "Scientifically" .. and science does not do this for us. What is does do is tell us when the "I Am" exists .. the point at which we know the entity is capable of "Significant Brain Function"

But you are not talking about any point .. that a Person might exist .. you are suggesting conception .. calling the zygote "pre born life"

and we know none of "I Am" science applies at this point .. and I asked you already this and you did not answer .. so perhaps this time you will manage .. At what point are you suggesting a person exists the "I Am" significant brain function .. and if not there .. then define personhood by some other measurment stick .. and back up your claim with "Science"

crying out "The heart Beats" does not mean a person exists .. and there is no "Science" you can present to show otherwise ... so knowing where science applies and where it does not is important .. and you clealy don't .. as you have provided no boundary .. .. you are all over the map .. jumping from one stage to another .. as if they are all the same .. that personhood applies equally to each stage.

So .. The floor is yours 1) at what point does a person exist .. 2) and why -- this is the part where you can present some science if you think it will help ... or other rational showing your claim is true.

 

The fact is that we are back to pre roe status quo where each state makes its own decision on the issue and that there is no constitutional right to an abortion nor a federal role in it. I’m ok with the present status quo and to work to persuade and change minds in states that continue to allow it. Some states have gone the other way and allowed abortion on demand no questions asked far longer than roe vs Wade allowed. Some states will virtually outlaw abortion except for protecting the very life of the other, and others will let it happen until the very moment before birth no questions asked. Some will take a middle ground somewhere. Federalism in action.

 

working good for dems, as 2022 showed

not sure why the SC did not wait until after the midterms, lol, they blew it

more then 70% of the country is pro-choice, which includes many republicans

 

More than 70% of the country wants some limits placed on abortion. Since we can’t reach a consensus on what the limit nationally should be it’s best left up to the states. I could live with the 6 week limit in general (heart neaand 12 weeks in cases of rape and incest, unlimited in cases of life of the mother. Now, in order to have a national consensus, states that allow virtually no abortion and states that have it unlimited until the moment of birth will have to compromise somewhere close to the European standard rather than anything like roe. Getting rid of Roe as was done is an accomplishment hard earned over almost 50 years. I’d rather keep the status quo if the “compromise” for a national standard is over 12 weeks.

 

Nope, old testament god was Mr. Hyde, new testament god is Dr Jeckel.